Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Green Sea Modelling
Green Sea Modelling
Design Tool for Green Sea, Wave Impact, and Structural Response on Bow and Deck
Structures
. Hellan, O.A. Hermundstad and C.T. Stansberg, MARINTEK
Abstract
In the offshore industry, there has been a growing attention
around damages on bow and deck structures on FPSOs and
floating platforms caused by wave impact in steep storm wave
conditions. A standard design tool taking properly into
account these effects still does not seem to have been
established, although there are various research and
development activities around in the industry. This is because
the problem involves strongly non-linear wave-structure
interaction effects that are hard to describe accurately by
present theoretical models. The development of fully 3D nonlinear tools is expected to still take some time, and simplified
models are considered for present engineering applications.
One such simplified approach is discussed in the present
paper. This is based on a combination of presently available
theory, with the aim to end up with a practical and robust tool
taking into account the most essential physical effects. A
discussion of the main physical mechanisms considered
important for the prediction of events with serious damages is
given. This includes such as non-linear effects in steep and
energetic random waves combined with wave diffraction and
vessel motion, non-linear water propagation on deck with
resulting impact load pressure distributions, and finally, the
structural integrity assessment. As a part of this analysis, the
prediction of impact events is also included. Empirical
calibration against model tests in regular and irregular waves
is included as an essential part of the approach. The ideas are
applied in the development of an engineering design tool.
Introduction
Background.
In recent years, a number of incidents with damage on bow
and deck structures have been reported from floating
OTC 13213
Water kinematics
Relative motions of ship and waves. The incoming wave
is simulated by a second-order random wave model, which
describes the water elevation as well as the kinematics. Vessel
motions are calculated with linear ship motion analysis, such
as 3D diffraction or strip theory. The diffracted wave field is
calculated taking into account linear 3D diffraction, either by
full diffraction analysis, or, alternatively, by empirical
correction or from experiments.
Relative motions are then estimated by combining the
linear vessel motions, second-order incoming wave and linear
diffraction. Particle velocities for waves exceeding the
vessels freeboard are estimated from the second order
incoming wave without diffraction. Systematic model test
observations are used in calibration of the models.
The approach and its simplifications are further discussed
in /16/.
Probability of water on deck. The relative motions are
used to assess the probability of water on deck. The volume
and velocity of water initially entering the vessel is calculated
at selected points around the bulwark as continuos time series
of hi(t) and vi(t) obtained from the water kinematics above.
Bow slamming
The water surface elevation and velocity are used together
with the ship motions as input to local bow slamming
analyses. These analyses are based on a zero-gravity potential
theory formulation similar to the Wagner method, but with
body boundary conditions satisfied on the real body surface
OTC 13213 DESIGN TOOL FOR GREEN SEA, WAVE IMPACT, AND STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ON BOW AND DECK STRUCTURES
Wave kinematics
A panel model for the vetted part of the hull is created, and
vessel movements and first order diffraction is calculated by
WAMIT /24/. The wave surface elevation is calculated by
combining linear diffraction and a second-order model for the
incoming wave. Particle velocities are estimated from the
second order incoming wave (without taking the diffracted
wave-field into account). Empirical corrections can be taken
into account, depending on the need and the actual application.
The simplifications made and their implications are considered
to be of minor importance in this case, in cases with large and
energetic waves and head seas, as shown in the discussion in
/16/.
Figure 5 shows the calculation domain for the wave
kinematics analysis. The dotted line shows the water line of
the vessel, while the es mark the points where surface
elevation and particle velocities are determined at selected
points along the bulwark, at the bow waterline and at some
points ahead of the vessel.
Figure 6 shows visual snap-shots from simulations in
irregular waves. Figure 7 shows time series samples of the
predicted surface wave elevation and horizontal free-surface
water velocity at the bow, including comparisons to a linear
incident wave without diffraction. A large and steep wave
event is selected in this example. The predicted wave elevation
is also compared to model test measurements of the same case.
It is seen that the measured elevation is reasonably well
predicted by the non-linear model. The slight underprediction
is likely to be caused by higher-order non-linearities in the
steep incident wave event. At the present stage, no empirical
corrections have been made. It is also seen that in this case, the
use of a linear incident wave without diffraction will clearly
underpredict the maximum elevation. Also the corresponding
linear water velocity is significantly lower than the non-linear
one.
Water on deck
The water propagation across the deck is modelled by a
shallow water approach. Water entering at the most forward
part of the bow, the water has a velocity in the longitudinal
direction. Water entering form the sides of the bow has a
transverse velocity component towards the middle of the deck.
These waterflows meet at the centre of the deck and forms a
high water tongue which propagate at high velocity along
the middle of the deck.
Figure 8 shows simulated water propagation across the
deck of the case vessel based on a dam breaking mechanism.
Local loads
Figure 9 shows measured impact forces across a 2.752.75
meters pressure panel (full scale) for the two green water
incidents in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The dam-breaking-like
water entry causes a rapid increase in lateral forces on the
deckhouse wall, and that the forces act for a significant period
of time. The water jet case creates forces with a much
higher intensity and much lower duration. However, as shown
OTC 13213
below, even these loads have duration longer than the eigen
period of the deckhouse wall.
Integrity assessment
Figure 10 shows a typical deckhouse structure, with pressureimpulse capacity estimates shown in Figure 12. Combinations
of p and i below and to the left of the curves identify
admissible points, while points above and to the right of the
curves exceed the limiting criteria. In the present study the
deformations limit is defined as = ymax / yelastic = 8 and the
deckhouse wall is modelled with pinned end conditions.
Figure 12 also shows the effect of various impulse shapes
(shown in Figure 11) on the dynamic capacity of the
deckhouse. Figure 13 shows the effect of end conditions and
added mass on the capacity estimates.
Dry and wet eigen periods are estimated to 1.610-2 and
3.010-2 seconds, respectively. Compared to the measured
impulse duration in Figure 9, this implies that the impact loads
can be considered as quasi-static loads, even the intense peak
created by the water jet overshooting both bulwark and deck.
Measured peak forces divided by the measurement area give
maximum average pressures of 170 kN/m2 and 925 kN/m2,
respectively. It is seen that the water jet case would
potentially be very damaging to the structure, while the
structure would probably sustain dam-breaking-like case
without serious damage.
The observed water jet case is associated with a freak or
extreme wave occurring as a rare event in the laboratory
generated random sea. The statistics of occurrence of such
freak events in the real nature is not quite clear, but is
currently a topic of discussion in the field of wave research
/25/.
Concluding remarks
A simplified approach for design and integrity assessment for
wave impact on bow and deck structures of floating
production vessels has been described in the present paper.
The approach is based on a combination of presently available
theory, with the aim to end up with a practical and robust tool
taking into account the most essential linear and non-linear
physical effects. Main physical effects have been discussed
through a research case study of an FPSO operating in
conditions typical of the Norwegian sector of the North Sea.
Simulations are in qualitative agreement with model tests and
theoretical solutions. Work is still in progress, but the
methodology shows promising results.
Bow slamming
Bow slamming loads and structural responses have not yet
been calculated for this particular case, but the method has
been applied to a wedge-shaped cross section as part of the
validation process. Hayman et al /26/ performed drop-tests
with a 2-meter wide aluminium ship section with 30 degree
deadrise. Some results from these tests are analysed in /27/.
The test section is shown in Figure 14. Strain gauges were
located between the stiffeners on both sides of the plate.
A single drop has been analysed with the present
numerical methods. The drop height was 2.9 meter and the
section was tilted 10 degrees to form an asymmetric impact
scenario with a 20 degree impact angle on the side of the
section where the strain gauges were located.
To analyse this case, a SESAM finite-element (FE) model
was established and the measured vertical acceleration was
used to find the relative velocity between the section and the
water. The Slam2D code was then used to calculate the
pressure distribution in time and space. This pressure was
applied to the FE-model by the VESHIP /28/ interface
program and the FE-model was analysed quasistatically.
Measured and calculated stresses in the local plate closest to
the keel (plate 1) are presented in Figure 15. It is seen that the
Acknowledgements
This work has been carried out within the Norwegian Joint
Industry Project Design Loads and Integrity Assessment for
Wave Impact on Bow and Deck Structures /15/, sponsored by
the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Norsk Hydro,
STATOIL, APL, NAVION, Rolls Royce Marine and PGS.
Permission to publish is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are
also due to Mr. Atle Johansen, Dr. Jan Hoff and Dr. Vibeke
Moe for valuable contributions.
References
/1/ Ersdal, G. and Kvitrud, A.: Green Water on Norwegian Production
Ships, Proc., the 10th ISOPE Conf., Seattle, WA, USA, 2000
/2/ MacGregor, J.R., Black, F., Wright, D. and Gregg, J., Design and
construction of the FPSO vessel for the Schiehallion field,
Transactions, The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, London,
UK, 2000
/3/ Buchner, B.: On the Impact of Green Water Loading on Ship and
Offshore Unit Design, Proc, Vol. 1, PRADS95, The Society of
Naval Architects of Korea, Seoul, Korea, 1995
/4/ Huang, Z.-J.: Non-linear Shallow Water Flow on Deck and Its
Effect on Ship Motion, Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Nova
Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1995
/5/ Buchner, B. and Voogt, A.: The Effect of Bow Flare Angle on
FPSO Green Water Loading, Proc., the19th OMAE Conf., Paper
No. OSU OFT-4092, New Orleans, LA, USA, 2000
/6/ Greco M., Faltinsen O.M., Landrini M., 2000: A Parametric Study
of Water on Deck Phenomena. Proc. Int. Conf. on Ship and
Shipping Research, NAV'2000, Venice.
/7/ Faltinsen O.M., Greco M., Landrini M., 2001: Green Water
Loading on a FPSO. Proc. OMAE 2001, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
2001.
/8/ Zhao R. and Faltinsen O.M.; Water entry of two-dimensional
bodies, J. Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 246, pp. 593-612, 1993
/9/ Zhao R., Faltinsen O.M. and Aarsnes, J.V.: Water entry of
arbitrary two-dimensional sections with and without flow
separation, Proc. 21st Symp. Naval Hydrodynamics, Trondheim,
Norway, pp. 408-423, 1996
/10/ Guignard, S., Rey, V. and Marcer, R., New method for simulation
of nonlinear wave effects, Proc., Vol. III, 9th ISOPE Conf., Brest,
France, pp. 382-387, 1999
OTC 13213 DESIGN TOOL FOR GREEN SEA, WAVE IMPACT, AND STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ON BOW AND DECK STRUCTURES
S E M I
D
W a v e ru n u p s
a n d s la m m in g
E C K -
H O U S E
F P S O
O W
G re e n w a te r
s la m m in g o n d e c k
v
1
W
B
G re e n w a te r
s la m m in g o n d e c k
A V E
IN
S
IN E M A T IC S
C ID E N T
W A V E
O W
G E O M E T R Y
H IP
M O T IO N
R E E B O A R D
N T R Y
E X C E E D A N C E ,
V E L O C IT Y ,
L J
D J
W
F
E
B o w s la m m in g
E C K -
O C A L
O L U M E
A T E R
O L U M E ,
L O W
(X ,Y )
E L O C IT Y , V (X ,Y )
U R F A C E
A N G L E
E C K -
H O U S E
p (t)
D A M A G E
p (t)
X C E E D A N C E
V E L O C IT Y
@ (t)
I (t)
R E E B O A R D
N T R Y
V
o
R O P A G A T IO N
H O U S E
E x tre m e w a v e s
a n d
d e c k s la m m in g
A T E R
A T E R
U R F A C E
O A D S
O F
W A T E R
V E L O C IT Y
A N G L E
4
R E S S U R E
A S
F U N C T IO N
O F
T IM E
S P A C E
A N D
O F
S
P
O F
T R U C T U R A L
R E S S U R E
T IM E
A N D
A S
IN
T E G R IT Y
F U N C T IO N
S P A C E
E F O R M A T IO N S
T R E S S E S
A M A G E S
OTC 13213
Figure 3 Model tests of an FPSO with water on deck. Water entry by water flow on the deck continuously from the bow and backwards.
Figure 4 Model tests of an FPSO with water on deck. Water entry by a water jet overshooting the bulwark impacting the deckhouse wall.
11
11
10
9
8
7
19 5
6
221 2
21 23 3
20
4
10
19
18
12
17
13
16
14
5
1
22
6
2
21
23
20
15
y
OTC 13213 DESIGN TOOL FOR GREEN SEA, WAVE IMPACT, AND STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ON BOW AND DECK STRUCTURES
Figure 7 Time series samples, irregular waves. Left: Surface elevation at bow, compared to measurement. Right: Free-surface water velocity
(linear incident wave indicated with dashed lines for comparison)
OTC 13213
Impulse 1
Impulse 2
Impulse 3
Intensity
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
Time
1000
4000
Impulse 1
Impulse 2
Impulse 3
Pinned ends
Fixed ends
Incl. added mass
800
Pressure [kN/m2]
Pressure [kN/m2]
3000
600
400
2000
1000
200
10
15
Impulse [(kN/m2)*seconds]
20
25
10
15
20
25
Impulse [(kN/m2)*seconds]
OTC 13213 DESIGN TOOL FOR GREEN SEA, WAVE IMPACT, AND STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ON BOW AND DECK STRUCTURES
Figure 14 One half of the section used in drop tests by Hayman et al (1991). Left: Side view. Right: Top view.
60
40
20
[M
Pa]
0
-20
-40
-60
10
20
30
[ms]
40
50
Figure 15 Time-history of measured (continuous lines) and calculated (crosses) stresses in the local plate closest to the keel of the section
used in drop tests by Hayman et al (1991). The bottom curve shows stress on the outer side of plate while the top curve shows stress on the
inner side.